Electrophile Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 OJ was rich. If he was OJ Simpson the bus driver, he'd be on death row at San Quentin right now. You know that, I know that, he knows that. His money, and his ability to afford a "dream team" of defense attorneys got him acquitted. That, and the prosecution screwing up the easiest, most slam-dunk murder case LA had seen in a long, long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strider Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 OJ is black. Didn't seem to be a problem for him. Ha! OJ is as black as I am. And a jury in LA is different than a jury in Florida or rural Texas. I don't think a month goes by when DNA hasn't exonerated some poor black dude on the way to the electric chair or gas chamber in the nick of time. And the cases usually are from Texas or Florida, states that are gleefully pro-death penalty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypeO Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 Not if they are black. If Casey Anthony was black that jury would have come back with a guilty verdict, and they would have no problem with giving her the death penalty. Bank on it. Exactly. Although, to be fair, there would have had a totally different jury selected if the defendant was a black woman. Jury selection is key. The movie Devil's Advocate with Al Pacino and Keanu Reeves really opened my eyes to that. Yeah, it was a movie, but it's common knowledge how much research goes into the demographics of areas potential jurors are drawn from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireOpal Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 Marcia Clark has shared her experience that the less educated a jury is, the more sceptical they are of forensic evidence. She believed it was a factor in both the Casey Anthony trial and the O.J. trial. I don't know if that sheds light on some of the head-scratching comments made by an alternate juror, such as "we just didn't believe that baby was ever in the trunk of her mom's car" (contrary to evidence presented) and "it was an accident that spiraled out of control" (purely speculative). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 Florida isn't "gleefully" death penalty. When was the last time someone was executed in Florida? Texas you might have a point on, but let's not make this racial. OJ wasn't acquitted because he was black, he was acquitted because he was rich. The same black man with the same name but substantially less money would have been convicted because he wouldn't have had the lawyers to expose how inept the prosecution was. Also, the majority of people freed by DNA evidence haven't been exclusively black, but they have been exclusively poor. The exact kind of people who can't afford the kind of defense that would have exonerated them in the first place. Poor people are more likely to be wrongfully convicted/executed than rich people, and it doesn't matter what their racial make-up is. There's plenty of actual cases of racial discrimination and bias in this country to focus on without throwing OJ Simpson into it. That was money, pure and simple. Look at Lindsay Lohan -- do you think she's continuously been able to flaunt the law because she's white? No, she's famous. Celebrities operate in a different world than we do, and it has nothing to do with the color of their skin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cryingbluerain Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 Ha! OJ is as black as I am. Much of the black community seemed pretty jubilated when he was acquitted if I remember correctly. And a jury in LA is different than a jury in Florida or rural Texas. I don't think a month goes by when DNA hasn't exonerated some poor black dude on the way to the electric chair or gas chamber in the nick of time. And the cases usually are from Texas or Florida, states that are gleefully pro-death penalty. Noted, and death penalty views aside, justice wasn't served in the OJ trial just as you are saying that it didn't happen with Casey Anthony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackDog71 Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 Something about the jurors in this trial doesn't sit right with me for some reason. I am not a conspiracy theorist by any means, but something just feels icky. If that makes any sense. Plus, they let a child murderer go free. That alone is enough to make my stomach turn R.I.P. Caylee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walter Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 Casey is OUT next Wednesday! The judge appeared to throw the book at her, but in reality caved in on the dates for time served - behind closed doors. Information concerning time served is supposed, and expected, to be produced by the defense in court. Then, it is supposed to be a PUBLIC ruling for when she began serving time and how much is taken off for "good behavior". Part of her time in jail was for passing those bad checks back in 2008. So the judge tries to look good because he is an elected official and wants to please the masses, he also helps the police by defusing the situation outside. It'll be interesting to see how much he decides Casey should pay back to the investigators due to lies. She'll have enough money though because I just heard that she and Baez have signed a contract with an entertainment agent as a pair. Match made in ....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knebby Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 I hate to say it but it's actually true. To be found "Not guilty" of a crime does NOT mean to be found "Innocent". It's not the same in legal terms - whatever we all may think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 Not guilty doesn't mean innocent, at least not legally-speaking. There is no such thing as innocent in a court of law. You're either guilty or not guilty. If you give a verdict of not guilty, that means that you didn't think the prosecution successfully proved the defendant committed the crime to which they were accused. If you come back with guilty, that means you think the prosecution did. You can kill someone (or commit any crime), but get acquitted if the prosecution can't successfully prove to 12 people that you did it. Especially if there's no eyewitness testimony or DNA evidence that links you to the crime. Just because she was acquitted doesn't mean she didn't do it. She very well might have, the prosecution just couldn't prove it. That doesn't mean the court proclaimed her innocent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knebby Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 Hey I came onto this very site when Michael Jackson was found not guilty of the charges against him and I made the mistake of saying that he had been found "innocent". People on this site came down on me like a ton of bricks. I'm sorry but it has to work in all cases. The legal system of the USA is what it is, or it is a farce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 Just because you seem to think not guilty/innocent are the same things, doesn't make it so. Knebby is 100% correct. In a court of law, a verdict of not guilty does not mean the same thing as a proclamation of innocence. The prosecution needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you did what you're accused of doing. If they can't, the jury is required to return a verdict of not guilty. Once again, that doesn't mean that you didn't do it. It means that a court cannot prove you did it. Those are two very different things. Just accept that and move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walter Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 Baez has released a statement that he and only he, has signed a deal. Made sure to say that Casey has not. I'm sure that is a legal front so she'll save money from going back to the state. Yes "not guilty" does not mean innocent. I can accept the jury not finding her guilty and sending her to the needle. But to find her not guilty of the lesser felony charges is unacceptable and blatant disregard for the credible evidence presented. Karma is a bitch, I agree. But I also believe the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. This won't be the last time she has legal trouble, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walter Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 Just reported: A tree next to the Caylee memorial, where the remains were found, was just struck by lightning during an afternoon storm! You can't make this shit up! There is a reporter doing a live feed from there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redrum Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 Sounds like most of the responses here want to burn her at the stake. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbjr9btgAac Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2bitnogoodjive Posted July 7, 2011 Author Share Posted July 7, 2011 Sounds like most of the responses here want to burn her at the stake. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbjr9btgAac Or the jury.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texas Melanie Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 Sounds like most of the responses here want to burn her at the stake. http://www.youtube.c...h?v=qbjr9btgAac No, we just wanted justice for a two year old that was brutally killed. If she didn't directly kill her daughter, she was involved in her death and cover up. She knows what happened to her daughter. Spending two years in jail is not enough time served in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deborah J Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 I am still in shock at this. As a parent her actions alone were beyond reproach. She walked in court today looking completely different than during the trial. Even IF that little girl drowned, as a parent you would call for help immediately. I just do not understand what is called our "Justice System". I wonder if we will ever know exactly what happened to little Caylee. Unfreakinbelievable, and so many people want children that can't have them...I really just cannot comprehend the outcome of this, all of it, her as a mother, the jury, the system. Pathetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cryingbluerain Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 Unfreakinbelievable, and so many people want children that can't have them... This reminds me why I am so passionately pro-life. My heart breaks for the children whose lives are cut short before they even get a chance to take a breath. All this media fuss over a woman killing her child and meanwhile it happens every day and the media is only outraged when taxpayers with a conscience just want to stop paying for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 Oh Lord, not the abortion debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strider Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 This reminds me why I am so passionately pro-life. My heart breaks for the children whose lives are cut short before they even get a chance to take a breath. All this media fuss over a woman killing her child and meanwhile it happens every day and the media is only outraged when taxpayers with a conscience just want to stop paying for it. Nope...way out of line...it's not even close to being the same thing. Here's a theory about Caylee's killing I read today, boiled down to the bare essentials: Casey's dad abused her as a child. The dad then tries to do the same with Casey's daughter Caylee, accidentally killing her with the chloroform he was using to render her unconcious. Hence, the reason why gramps tried to kill himself. The article goes into some psychological reasons why Casey would try to help her dad cover it up, etc...okay, I found the article for you all to read... Why Casey Anthony's Verdict Makes Sense By Dr. Keith Ablow Published July 05, 2011 Casey Anthony was found not guilty of murder, which makes good sense. Much of the state’s case rested on the fact that Casey didn’t seem grief-stricken at all after her daughter went missing. She actually went out dancing, had sex and got a tattoo. Yet, for those who cannot fathom how Casey Anthony could have gone out partying with men and spending money on clothes after the death of Caylee Anthony—unless she killed her daughter—there is another potential explanation. Some emotionally vulnerable people can experience mania—the “high” phase of bipolar disorder, essentially the opposite of depression—in the setting of unthinkable trauma or loss. Even if you despise Casey Anthony, you have to admit that the death of her daughter (if she did not kill her) would qualify as such a trauma or loss. Symptoms of mania could then ensue, including: overspending, hypersexual behavior, sleeplessness and a sense of euphoria (which would be seen in photographs as seeming joy). Indeed, one could imagine that a human being’s mind might well “snap” into mania if, for example, she were the victim of rape as a child (something Casey accuses her father of perpetrating), then learned that the man responsible for her rape had tried to sexually assault her daughter while using chloroform to drug her, only to cause her death “accidentally.” And, believe it or not, a young woman in denial of her assailant’s depravity, preferring to think she was actually “chosen” as a little girl over her mother, might even cover up for her assailant and the killer of her daughter, because she has been trained to hide his assaultiveness her whole life. She might even sit still for a long, long time, despite that man making the death of her daughter look like murder by a third individual. I’m not saying that anything really happened this way, but it could have. Really. And if it did, it would certainly explain why George Anthony would contemplate suicide in the middle of this case (Grandparents don’t routinely try to kill themselves when their grandchildren go missing or are found dead; in fact, I have never, ever heard of it happening). And it would also explain why George Anthony would have an affair while his granddaughter was missing (which he denies)—because in this scenario he would be unable to control his sexual impulses in a variety of venues. Again, I am not saying that this is what happened. I am saying that it is plausible from the standpoint of a forensic psychiatrist. And I just don’t know how you send a woman to jail for life, or for decades, or to her death for killing her daughter, when there’s an alternate storyline that holds water just as well. Dr. Keith Ablow is a psychiatrist and member of the Fox News Medical A-Team. Dr. Ablow can be reached at info@keithablow.com. I am still in shock at this. As a parent her actions alone were beyond reproach... Deb, I think the phrase you're thinking of is "beyond the pale"..."beyond reproach" suggests she has nothing to apologize for, that her actions were perfect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walter Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 Release date is now Sunday, July 17. And the wheel rolls on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvermedalist Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 I am still in shock at this. As a parent her actions alone were beyond reproach. She walked in court today looking completely different than during the trial. Even IF that little girl drowned, as a parent you would call for help immediately. I just do not understand what is called our "Justice System". I wonder if we will ever know exactly what happened to little Caylee. Unfreakinbelievable, and so many people want children that can't have them...I really just cannot comprehend the outcome of this, all of it, her as a mother, the jury, the system. Pathetic. I agree and then they have the nerve to go have a "party" at some bar across the street. That is bullshit. A party? For what? A victory for letting this bitch get away with murder? I dont care if its I or II, she did not make the call that any reall parent would make. Someone will get her. One way or another. I hope she gets hers. Just like OJ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypeO Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 I learned today that one of the lying to authorities counts was saying she talked to Caylee on the phone when in fact Caylee was already dead. That is troubling to say the least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walter Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 ^ Yes, it was part of that whole Zanny the Nanny story. You know that the real Zanada Gonzalez is suing her in civil court - for defamation of character? Boy, she was dressed to walk out today! What a sour look on her face when it finally dawned on her that she was going back into jail though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.